ARMY DIR 2017-35 ACQUISITION REFORM INITIATIVE #8: ASSESSING PERFORMANCE WITH METRICS

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN6466_AD2017-35_Web_Final.pdf

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-35 (Acquisition Reform Initiative #8: Assessing
Performance With Metrics)
1. References. A complete list of references is at enclosure 1.
2. The purpose of this directive is to implement measures and metrics that assess
performance across the acquisition enterprise and to assign offices of primary
responsibility (OPRs) for implementing metrics across seven lines of effort (LOEs).
Assessment of the near-term effects and long-term outcomes of acquisition reform is an
enduring strategic Army priority requiring a sustained effort synchronized across all
organizations. OPRs support cross-functional understanding of performance across the
Army acquisition enterprise against standards, goals, and desired outcomes. Metrics
will be continually reviewed and will evolve over time as objectives are met and new
targets are defined. This directive is a continuation of Army Directive 2017-22.
3. OPRs will coordinate the deliberate, phased implementation of this cross-functional
strategic performance measurement effort across stakeholder organizations. This
directive provides the approach for refining, implementing, and reporting functional
metrics in enclosures 2 through 8. Reviews will be conducted to ensure that collected
metrics are value-added, inform decisions, and support optimal acquisition outcomes.
OPRs will coordinate and integrate required information and decision briefings to
Headquarters, Department of the Army senior leaders in accordance with the following
process:
a. Phase 0: Initial Assessment and Refinement of Metrics. Each OPR will:
(1) assess the initial metrics for their LOE and identify additional metrics that can
be used to assess performance.
(2) prepare preliminary metrics results, OPR recommendations on LOE metrics
to be collected, and a summary of progress toward the overall LOE functional
assessment objectives.
b. Phase 1: Metrics Collection and Reporting Planning. Each OPR will:
S E C R E T A R Y O F T H E A R M Y
W A S H I N G T O N
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-35 (Acquisition Reform Initiative #8: Assessing
Performance With Metrics)
2
(1) design an achievable metric data collection plan and an automated metric
reporting capability that can reliably collect valid metrics that describe performance
against desired outcomes.
(2) prepare Phase 1 metrics results and summary of progress toward LOE
metrics reporting objectives, including an update on an automated metric reporting
capability with common operating pictures or other data displays.
c. Phase 2: Metrics Reporting. Each OPR will:
(1) execute metric data collection to achieve initial operating capability (IOC)
metric reporting capability and increase understanding of Army acquisition enterprise
performance assessment reporting capability gaps to assess effects on desired
outcomes.
(2) prepare Phase 2 metrics results, summary of progress toward
operationalized metric reporting capability, and planned schedule for transition to the
automated metric reporting capability.
d. Phase 3: Sustainment of Metrics Reporting. Each OPR will:
(1) operationalize the execution of metric data collection to achieve full operating
capability and continue to identify and mitigate performance assessment reporting
capability gaps against desired end states and mission-critical measure areas. The
goal is to report metric data collection no later than 6 months from the date of IOC.
(2) prepare metrics results and LOE performance assessment findings.
e. Each OPR will present a quarterly decision brief to the Under Secretary of the
Army and Vice Chief of Staff, Army on LOE metrics. (Target: No later than (NLT)
30 December 2017.)
4. I direct the following actions:
a. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and
Technology) will serve as OPR for the following LOEs: Science and Technology,
Acquisition, Contracting, and Logistics.
b. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and
Comptroller) will serve as OPR for the Resourcing LOE.
c. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command will serve as the OPR for the
Requirements LOE.
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-35 (Acquisition Reform Initiative #8: Assessing
Performance With Metrics)
3
d. U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command will serve as the OPR for the Test and
Evaluation LOE.
5. OPR responsibilities, end state measures, and initial metrics for each LOE are
detailed as follows: Requirements (enclosure 2), Science and Technology
(enclosure 3), Resourcing (enclosure 4), Acquisition (enclosure 5), Contracting
(enclosure 6), Test and Evaluation (enclosure 7), and Logistics (enclosure 8).
6. The policies in this directive apply to the Active Army, Army National Guard/Army
National Guard of the United States, and U.S. Army Reserve.
7. This directive may be rescinded at the discretion of the Secretary of the Army.
Encls Ryan D. McCarthy
Acting
DISTRIBUTION:
Principal Officials of Headquarters, Department of the Army
Commander
U.S. Army Forces Command
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command
U.S. Army Materiel Command
U.S. Army Pacific
U.S. Army Europe
U.S. Army Central
U.S. Army North
U.S. Army South
U.S. Army Africa/Southern European Task Force
U.S. Army Special Operations Command
Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Strategic Command
U.S. Army Cyber Command
U.S. Army Medical Command
U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command
U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Military District of Washington
U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command
U.S. Army Installation Management Command
(CONT)
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-35 (Acquisition Reform Initiative #8: Assessing
Performance With Metrics)
4
DISTRIBUTION: (CONT)
U.S. Army Human Resources Command
U.S. Army Financial Management Command
U.S. Army Marketing and Engagement Brigade
Superintendent, United States Military Academy
Director, U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center
Executive Director, Arlington National Cemetery
Commandant, U.S. Army War College
Director, U.S. Army Civilian Human Resources Agency
CF:
Director, Army National Guard
Director of Business Transformation
Commander, Eighth Army
Army Directive 2017-35 Enclosure 1
REFERENCES
a. Section 1735, Title 10, United States Code, Education, training, and experience
requirements for critical acquisition positions.
b. Section 1741, Title 10, United States Code, Policies and Programs: Establishment
and Implementation.
c. Section 3016b(5)(A), Title 10, United States Code, Assistant Secretaries of the
Army.
d. Section 1122, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Public Law
114-328.
e. Section 808, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, Public Law
114-92.
f. Chief of Staff of the Army, Report to Congress on Linking and Streamlining Army
Requirements, Acquisition, and Budget Processes in Response to National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, Section 808 (May 2016).
g. Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5000.01 (The Defense Acquisition System),
May 12, 2003, Certified Current as of November 20, 2007.
h. DoD Instruction 5000.02 (Operation of the Defense Acquisition System), January 7,
2015; Incorporating Change 3, Effective August 10, 2017.
i. Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) General Orders No. 2017-01
(Assignment of Functions and Responsibilities Within Headquarters, Department of the
Army), 5 January 2017.
j. Army Directive 2017-22 (Implementation of Acquisition Reform Initiatives 1 and 2),
12 Sep 2017.
Army Directive 2017-35 Enclosure 2
REQUIREMENTS LINE OF EFFORT
OPR Office of Primary Responsibility: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)
End State: Timely, quality, capability requirements documents aligned to Chief of Staff, Army (CSA) priorities and
operational risks executed by a trained and certified workforce.
Mission Critical Measure Areas: Capability requirements aligned to CSA priorities and operational risks, timely
capability requirements development; timely capability requirements documents staffing; quality capability requirements to
the Army Requirements Oversight Council (AROC), and qualified requirements workforce.
Table 2-1: Requirements Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 1.1 Capability requirements
documents aligned to CSA
priorities and operational
risks
LOE 1.1.1 Requirements documents
aligned to CSA priorities
% of requirements documents aligned to CSA priorities 100%
LOE 1.1.2 Requirements documents
aligned to extremely high-
risk or high-risk capability
gaps identified by TRADOC
capability needs
assessment.
% of requirements documents addressing extremely
high-risk or high-risk capability gaps
80%
LOE 1.2 Timely capability
requirements Development
LOE 1.2.1 Timely initial capabilities
document (ICD)
development/Centers of
Excellence (COEs)
% of documents meeting the requirements documents
development time standard (120 days)
100%
LOE 1.2.2 Timely capability
development document
(CDD) Development/COEs
LOE 1.2.3 Timely capability production
document (CPD)
Development/COEs
Army Directive 2017-35 2 Enclosure 2
Table 2-1: Requirements Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 1.3 Timely requirements
documents staffing
LOE 1.3.1 Timely ICD staffing/COEs % of documents meeting the COE staffing time
standard (30 days)
100%
LOE 1.3.2 Timely CDD staffing/COEs
LOE 1.3.3 Timely CPD staffing/COEs
LOE 1.3.4 Timely ICD staffing/army
Capabilities Integration
Center (ARCIC)
% of documents meeting the ARCIC staffing time
standard (30 days)
100%
LOE 1.3.5 Timely CDD staffing/ARCIC
LOE 1.3.6 Timely CPD staffing/ARCIC
LOE 1.3.7 Timely ICD staffing/HQDA % of documents meeting the HQDA staffing time
standard (90 days)
100%
LOE 1.3.8 Timely CDD staffing/HQDA
LOE 1.3.9 Timely CPD staffing/HQDA
LOE 1.3.10 Timely ICD staffing/Joint
Requirements Oversight
Council (JROC)
% of documents meeting the JROC staffing time
standard (97 days)
100%
LOE 1.3.11 Timely CDD Staffing/JROC
LOE 1.3.12 Timely CPD Staffing/JROC
LOE 1.4 Quality requirements
documentation to AROC
LOE 1.4.1 Requirement
documentation first pass
through AROC Review Board
% of requirements documents that received first-time
approval from AROC Review Board
80%
LOE 1.4.2 Requirement
documentation first pass
through AROC
% of requirements documents that received first-time
approval from AROC
80%
Army Directive 2017-35 3 Enclosure 2
Table 2-1: Requirements Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 1.5 Qualified requirements
workforce
LOE 1.5.1 Effectively trained TRADOC
capability developers
% of TRADOC capability developers who have
completed recommended training
90%
LOE 1.5.2 Effectively trained Army
Staff capability
requirements workforce
% of Army Staff capability requirements workforce
who have completed recommended training
90%
LOE 1.5.3 Certified capability
developers
% of TRADOC capability developers who are certified 90%
LOE 1.5.4 Certified Army Staff
capability requirements
workforce
% of Army Staff capability requirements workforce
who are certified
90%
Army Directive 2017-XX Enclosure 3
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY LINE OF EFFORT
Office of Primary Responsibility: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)
End State: Innovative projects aligned to strategic guidance with transitions to internal and external customers.
Mission Critical Measure Areas: Science and Technology (S&T) programs aligned to S&T Strategy; S&T resource
reprogramming; S&T project technology impact; S&T cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs); S&T
project maturation; S&T project transitions; S&T innovation.
Table 2-2: Science and Technology Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 2.1 S&T projects aligned to S&T
Strategy
LOE 2.1.1 S&T projects aligned to
Secretary of the Army/CSA
priorities
% of S&T projects aligned with Secretary of the
Army/CSA priorities approved by S&T Advisory Group. 100%
LOE 2.2 S&T resources
Reprogramming
LOE 2.2.1 S&T resource
reprogramming
Amount of the S&T budget reprogramed each year of
the Program Objective Memorandum (POM).
≥ $300M in
POM
LOE 2.3 S&T project technology
Impact
LOE 2.3.1 S&T disruptive technology % of planned S&T projects that are disruptive
technology. ≥ 50% projects
LOE 2.3.2 S&T incremental technology % of planned S&T projects that are incremental
technology. ≤ 25% projects
LOE 2.4 S&T CRADAs LOE 2.4.1 S&T CRADAs with industry
and academia
# of CRADAs initiated with industry and academia over
the last 12 months. ≥ 20 annually
LOE 2.5 S&T projects Maturation LOE 2.5.1 S&T project Technology
Readiness Level
demonstrations (6.1, 6.2,
6.3)
# of budget activity 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 S&T technology
readiness level demonstrations conducted over the
last 12 months.
≥ 50 annually
LOE 2.5.2 S&T prototype
demonstrations (6.4)
# of budget activity 6.4 S&T technology
demonstrations conducted by an S&T organization
over the last 12 months.
≥ 6 annually
Army Directive 2017-35 2 Enclosure 3
Table 2-2: Science and Technology Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 2.6 S&T project Transitions LOE 2.6.1 S&T projects with transition
agreement (TA)
# of approved S&T projects with a TA. ≥ 1,000
LOE 2.6.2 S&T projects with TA
transitioned to external
customer
# of S&T projects identified in a TA that transitioned to
an external customer in the past last 12 months.
≥ 150 annually
LOE 2.6.3 S&T projects with TA
transitioned to S&T
organization
# of S&T projects identified in a TA that transitioned to
an S&T Organization in the past last 12 months.
≥ 300 annually
LOE 2.6.4 S&T projects without TA # of S&T projects without TA < 100
LOE 2.6.5 S&T projects terminated # of S&T projects terminated over the last 12 months ≥ 10 annually
LOE 2.7 S&T project innovation LOE 2.7.1 S&T organization
publications
# of papers published in the previous 12 months. ≥ 200 annually
LOE 2.7.2 S&T organization patent
applications
# of patent applications in the previous 12 months ≥ 200 annually
LOE 2.7.3 S&T organization patents
issued
# of patents issued in the previous 12 months ≥ 200 annually
LOE 2.8 S&T project timeliness LOE 2.8.1 S&T project schedule
growth
% of S&T projects with > 10% growth over plan < 10%
LOE 2.8.2 Significant S&T project
schedule growth
% of S&T projects with > 20% schedule growth over
plan
< 5%
LOE 2.8.3 S&T projects active in
> 5 years
% of S&T projects in the S&T Portfolio over 5 years < 10%
LOE 2.9 S&T project cost LOE 2.9.1 S&T project cost growth % of S&T projects with > 10% cost growth over plan < 10%
LOE 2.9.2 Significant S&T project cost
growth
% of S&T projects with > 20% cost growth over plan < 5%
LOE 2.10 S&T project performance LOE 2.10.1 S&T projects meeting their
technology objectives
% of S&T projects achieving planned technology
objectives
> 90%
Army Directive 2017-35 Enclosure 4
RESOURCING LINE OF EFFORT
Office of Primary Responsibility: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and
Comptroller)
End State: Accurate timely acquisition cost estimates and effective budget obligation and execution.
Mission Critical Measure Areas: Program obligation rate, program execution rate, program cost estimate accuracy;
timely Army cost analysis requirements description and submission; timely Army Cost Position development.
Table 2-3: Resourcing Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 3.1 Program obligation rate LOE 3.1.1 Research, development,
test, and evaluation
(RDT&E) programs meeting
first year obligation rate
(90%)
% of programs meeting the appropriations spending
requirements (in accordance with Office of the
Secretary of Defense policy)
100%
LOE 3.1.2 RDT&E programs meeting
second year obligation rate
(100%)
LOE 3.1.3 Procurement programs
meeting first year obligation
rate (80%)
LOE 3.1.4 Procurement programs
meeting second year
obligation rate (90%)
LOE 3.1.5 Procurement programs
meeting third year
obligation rate (100%)
Army Directive 2017-35 2 Enclosure 4
Table 2-3: Resourcing Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 3.2 Program execution rate LOE 3.2.1 RDT&E programs meeting
first year execution rate
(55%)
% of programs meeting the obligations spending
requirements (in accordance with Office of the
Secretary of Defense policy)
100%
LOE 3.2.2 RDT&E programs meeting
second year execution rate
(90%)
LOE 3.2.3 RDT&E programs meeting
third year execution rate
(100%)
LOE 3.3 Program cost estimate
accuracy
LOE 3.3.1 Program Average
Procurement Unit Cost
(APUC) estimate accuracy
% of ACAT I programs maintaining APUC within 5% of
the Milestone C cost estimate
100%
LOE 3.4 Timely submission of cost
analysis requirements
description
LOE 3.4.1 Timely submission of cost
analysis requirements
description
% of Major Defense Acquisition Programs that submit
the draft cost analysis requirements description to
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Cost and
Economics) at least 180 days before the Army
Overarching Integrated Product Team
100%
LOE 3.5 Timely Army Cost Position
development
LOE 3.5.1 Timely Army Cost Position
development
% of Major Defense Acquisition Programs that meet
timeline standards (≤ 90 days) for development of the
Army Cost Position
100%
Army Directive 2017-35 Enclosure 5
ACQUISITION LINE OF EFFORT
Office of Primary Responsibility: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)
End State: Mature programs developed on cost and on schedule approved under tailored milestone documentation.
Mission Critical Measure Areas: Program cost growth, procurement cost growth, program schedule growth, program
maturation, and tailored program milestone
Table 2-4: Acquisition Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 4.1 Program cost growth LOE 4.1.1 Program cost growth:
original baseline estimate
for the Program Acquisition
Unit Cost (PAUC) to current
PAUC estimate
% of programs with ≥ 20% growth over originally
approved Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) PAUC
estimate ≤ 5%
LOE 4.1.2 Program cost growth:
current baseline estimate
for the PAUC to current
PAUC estimate
% of programs with ≥ 10% growth over currently
approved APB PAUC estimate ≤ 5%
LOE 4.1.3 Significant program cost
breach: programs with
≥ 30% growth over original
baseline PAUC estimate
# of programs with ≥ 30% growth over originally
approved APB PAUC estimate 0
LOE 4.1.4 Significant program cost
breach: programs with
≥ 15% growth over current
baseline PAUC estimate
# of programs with ≥ 15% growth over currently
approved APB PAUC estimate 0
LOE 4.1.5 Critical program cost
breach: programs with
≥ 50% growth over original
# of programs with ≥ 50% growth over originally
approved APB PAUC estimate 0
Army Directive 2017-35 2 Enclosure 5
Table 2-4: Acquisition Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
baseline PAUC estimate
LOE 4.1.6 Critical program cost
breach: programs with
≥ 25% growth over current
baseline PAUC estimate
# of programs with ≥ 25% growth over currently
approved APB PAUC estimate 0
LOE 4.2 Procurement cost growth LOE 4.2.1 Program cost growth:
original baseline estimate
for the APUC to current
APUC estimate
% change in APUC from the originally approved APB
estimate ≤ 5%
LOE 4.2.2 Program cost growth:
current baseline estimate
for the APUC to current
APUC estimate
% change in APUC from the currently approved APB
estimate ≤ 5%
LOE 4.2.3 Significant program cost
breach: programs with
≥ 30% growth over original
baseline APUC estimate
# of programs with ≥ 30% growth over originally
approved APB APUC estimate 0
LOE 4.2.4 Significant program cost
breach: programs with
≥ 15% growth over current
baseline APUC estimate
# of programs with ≥ 15% growth over currently
approved APB APUC estimate 0
LOE 4.2.5 Critical program cost
breach: programs with
≥ 50% growth over original
baseline APUC estimate
# of programs with ≥ 50% growth over originally
approved APB APUC estimate 0
LOE 4.2.6 Critical program cost
breach: programs with
≥ 25% growth over current
baseline APUC estimate
# of programs with ≥ 25% growth over currently
approved APB APUC estimate 0
LOE 4.2.7 APB breach: cost # of APBs that were changed in the last 12 months
because of cost increase 0
Army Directive 2017-35 3 Enclosure 5
Table 2-4: Acquisition Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 4.3 Program schedule growth LOE 4.3.1 Program schedule baseline
growth: milestone delay
% of programs with > 30-day delay for milestone
decision in the last 12 months.
≤ 10%
LOE 4.3.2 Significant program
schedule breach: programs
≥ 6-month schedule delay
regardless of threshold
# of programs with ≥ 6-month schedule delay in the
last 12 months.
0
LOE 4.3.3 APB deviation: schedule # of APB objective schedule changes (objective value
plus 6 months) in the last 12 months.
0
LOE 4.4 Program maturation LOE 4.4.1 Validation of program Key
Performance Parameters (at
operational testing)
% of programs able to meet Key Performance
Parameters during operational testing over the last
12 months.
100%
LOE 4.4.2 Programs with documented
risk mitigation plan
% of programs with documented risk mitigation plan
NLT Milestone B. 100%
LOE 4.4.3 Programs meeting reliability
growth curve: limited user
test
% programs meeting planned reliability growth plan at
the completion of the limited user test. 100%
LOE 4.4.4 Programs meeting reliability
growth curve: initial
operational test
% programs meeting planned reliability growth plan at
the completion of the initial operational test. 100%
LOE 4.4.5 Programs meeting reliability
growth curve: follow-on
operational test and
evaluation (T&E)
% programs meeting planned reliability growth plan at
the completion of follow-on operational T&E.
100%
LOE 4.4.6 APB breach: performance # of APBs that were changed in the last 6 months
because they did not meet performance requirements.
0
LOE 4.4.7 Programs granted full
materiel release
# of programs granted full materiel release over the
last 12 months.
≥ 70
Army Directive 2017-35 4 Enclosure 5
Table 2-4: Acquisition Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 4.4.8 Programs granted
conditional materiel release
# of programs granted conditional materiel release
over the last 12 months.
≤ 20
LOE 4.4.9 conditional materiel
released programs without
full materiel release funding
% of programs granted conditional materiel release
during the past 12 months that were not provided the
funding to achieve full materiel release.
0
LOE 4.5 Tailored program milestone
documentation
LOE 4.5.1 Tailored program milestone
documentation
% of programs with tailored regulatory acquisition
documentation at a milestone review over the last
12 months.
100%
Army Directive 2017-35 Enclosure 6
CONTRACTING LINE OF EFFORT
Office of Primary Responsibility: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)
End State: Timely acquisition contract requirement development and efficient contracting process executed by a manned
and certified workforce.
Mission Critical Measure Areas: Timely acquisition contract requirement development; timely procurement contracting,
reduced bridge contracts, and manned and certified contracting workforce.
Table 2-5: Contracting Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 5.1 Timely acquisition contract
requirement development
LOE 5.1.1 System acquisition activities
meet acquisition
requirements leadtime
% of system acquisition activities meeting the
acquisition requirements leadtime standard (90 days).
100%
LOE 5.2 Timely procurement
contracting
LOE 5.2.1 U.S. Army Materiel
Command (AMC)/U.S. Army
Contacting Command
contracts meet
procurement action
leadtime
% of contract actions meeting the procurement action
leadtime standard (180 days).
100%
LOE 5.2.2 Timely solicitation phase
legal review
% of contract legal reviews meeting the legal review
cycle times standard (10 days)
100%
LOE 5.2.3 Timely evaluation phase
legal review
LOE 5.2.4 Timely solicitation phase
AMC peer review
% of contract peer reviews meeting the AMC peer
review cycle times standard (10 days).
100%
LOE 5.2.5 Timely evaluation phase
AMC peer review
LOE 5.3 Reduce bridge contracts LOE 5.3.1 Reduce bridge contracts # of bridge contracts awarded during the past TBD
Army Directive 2017-35 2 Enclosure 6
Table 2-5: Contracting Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
12 months.
LOE 5.4 Manned and certified
contracting workforce
LOE 5.4.1 Authorized positions: fill
rate
% of authorized contracting positions that are filled. ≥ 90%
LOE 5.4.2 Onhand personnel:
certification rate
% of contracting positions that are certified to their
required level.
≥ 95%
Army Directive 2017-35 Enclosure 7
TEST AND EVALUATION LINE OF EFFORT
Office of Primary Responsibility: U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command
End State: Effective test planning with on cost and on schedule T&E reporting executed by a certified workforce.
Mission Critical Measure Areas: Effective test planning, test cost growth, test schedule timeliness; test reporting
timeliness, test performance and assessment; test workforce certification.
Table 2-6. Test and Evaluation Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metric Goal
LOE 6.1 Effective test planning LOE 6.1.1 Programs with Soldier test
support/correct grade:
developmental testing
% of test programs with the correct grade of Soldiers
were available to support testing over the last
12 months.
80%
LOE 6.1.2 Programs with Soldier test
support/correct grade:
operational testing
LOE 6.1.3 Programs with Soldier test
support/correct skill:
developmental testing
% of test programs with the correct military
occupational specialty Soldiers were available to
support testing over the last 12 months.
80%
LOE 6.1.4 Programs with Soldier test
support/correct skill:
operational testing
LOE 6.1.5 Programs with Soldier test
support/correct quantity:
developmental testing
% of test programs with the correct number of Soldiers
were available to support testing over the last
12 months.
80%
LOE 6.1.6 Programs with Soldier test
support/correct quantity:
operational testing
LOE 6.1.7 Programs with Soldier test
support on time:
% of test programs with the Soldiers provided on time 80%
Army Directive 2017-35 2 Enclosure 7
Table 2-6. Test and Evaluation Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metric Goal
developmental testing to support testing over the last 12 months.
LOE 6.1.8 Programs with Soldier test
support on time:
operational testing
LOE 6.1.9 Programs with critical
system evaluation plan
issues elevated to general
officer level
% of programs where critical issues identified by the
T&E Working IPT during System Evaluation Plan review
are raised to the general officer level.
0
LOE 6.2 Test cost growth LOE 6.2.1 Test cost growth:
developmental testing
% of test events with greater than 10% cost growth
over the last 12 months.
0%
LOE 6.2.2 Test cost growth:
operational testing
LOE 6.2.3 Program testing exceeding
$40 million (development
and operational testing)
# of programs that exceed $40 million total test cost to
conduct developmental and operational testing.
0
LOE 6.2.4 Programs with follow-on
T&E (after operational
testing)
% of programs that require follow-on T&E. 0%
LOE 6.3 Test schedule timeliness LOE 6.3.1 On time start:
developmental testing
% of program to start testing on time (based on dates
provided in the signed T&E Master Plan).
90%
LOE 6.3.2 On time start: operational
testing
LOE 6.3.3 On time end:
developmental testing
% of programs to end testing on time (based on dates
in the signed T&E Master Plan).
90%
LOE 6.3.4 On time end: operational
testing
Army Directive 2017-35 3 Enclosure 7
Table 2-6. Test and Evaluation Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metric Goal
LOE 6.3.5 On time delivery:
production-representative
test articles
% of test programs that were significantly affected
because of the lack of production-representative test
articles over the last 12 months.
0%
LOE 6.3.6 Growth in test schedule:
developmental testing
% of test programs with greater than 10% schedule
growth over the last 12 months.
LOE 6.3.7 Program Government
developmental testing
exceeding 2 years
# of programs where Government developmental
testing (system-level testing) exceeds 2 years.
0%
LOE 6.3.8 Growth in test schedule:
operational testing
% of test programs with more than 10% schedule
growth over the last 12 months.
0%
LOE 6.4 Test reporting timeliness LOE 6.4.1 Timely Army test report:
developmental testing
% of Army programs that have an approved test report
within 60 days of the end of test.
100%
LOE 6.4.2 Timely Army test report:
operational testing
100%
LOE 6.4.3 Timely Joint test report:
developmental testing
% of Joint programs that have an approved test report
within 90 days of the end of test.
100%
LOE 6.4.4 Timely Joint test report:
operational testing
100%
LOE 6.5 Test performance
assessment
LOE 6.5.1 Programs assessed effective % of programs assessed as effective during the last
12 months.
100%
Army Directive 2017-35 Enclosure 8
LOGISTICS LINE OF EFFORT
Office of Primary Responsibility: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)
End State: Effective life-cycle planning, including organic industrial base (OIB) performance, supports on time program
transition to the Operational Army.
Mission Critical Measure Areas: Programs with reliability, availability, maintainability, cost (RAM-C) performance
measures; intellectual property strategy documentation; programs meeting sustainment performance parameters at full-
rate production (FRP); programs with independent logistics assessment (ILA); programs with a life-cycle sustainment plan
(LCSP) addressing transition execution; post-IOC program transitions; post-IOC program contract support; OIB
performance; and materiel readiness.
Table 2-7: Logistics Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 7.1 Programs with RAM-cost
performance measures
LOE 7.1.1 Programs with RAM-cost
report (NLT Milestone B)
% of new start programs with a RAM-cost report 100%
LOE 7.2 Documentation of
intellectual property
strategy
LOE 7.2.1 Programs with intellectual
property strategy in LSCP
(NLT Milestone C)
% of full developmental programs with an intellectual
property strategy (to include technical data package)
within the LCSP.
100%
LOE 7.3 Programs meeting LSCP
performance objectives by
FRP
LOE 7.3.1 Programs meeting
sustainment Key
Performance Parameter
objectives by FRP
% of programs to achieve life-cycle sustainment KPP
objectives by FRP.
100%
LOE 7.3.2 Programs meeting LSCP
RAM objectives by FRP
% of programs to achieve RAM performance objectives
by FRP.
100%
LOE 7.4 Programs with ILA LOE 7.4.1 Production programs with
ILA at FRP plus 2 years
% of programs with an ILA within 2 years after FRP. 100%
LOE 7.4.2 Production programs with
ILA 5 at Milestone C plus
5 years
% of programs with an ILA within 5 years after
Milestone C.
100%
Army Directive 2017-35 2 Enclosure 8
Table 2-7: Logistics Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 7.5 Programs with LSCP
addressing execution of
transition
LOE 7.5.1 Programs with LSCP
addressing execution of
transition (NLT Milestone C)
% of all programs with an agreement covering the
transition of sustainment execution activities between
AMC and Program Manager/Program Executive Officer
outlined in LCSP.
95%
LOE 7.6 Post-IOC program
transitions
LOE 7.6.1 Post-IOC programs
transitioned to sustainment
# of post-IOC Program of Records that have
transitioned to sustainment over the last 6 months.
> 10
LOE 7.7 Post-IOC program
contractor support
LOE 7.7.1 Post-IOC programs requiring
interim contract support at
IOC plus 3 years
# of programs beyond IOC plus 3 years requiring
interim contractor support.
≤ 5
LOE 7.7.2 Post-IOC programs requiring
contractor field service
representatives at IOC plus
3 years
# of programs beyond IOC plus 3 years requiring
contractor field service representatives.
≤ 5
LOE 7.8 OIB LOE 7.8.1 Effect on OIB readiness % of the planned OIB contribution achieved or
forecasted surge capability.
TBD
LOE 7.8.2 OIB surge capability % of the depots that met surge requirements for full
spectrum operations.
TBD
LOE 7.8.3 OIB performance to promise % of depots meeting OIB performance to promise
objectives.
TBD
LOE 7.8.4 OIB revenue Sales revenue generated by the OIB versus plan. TBD
LOE 7.8.5 OIB carryover (actual) Actual carryover as % of plan. TBD
LOE 7.8.6 OIB carryover (forecasted) Forecasted carryover as % of plan. TBD
LOE 7.8.7 OIB cost Total cost to serve (consisting of planning, sourcing,
material, production, fulfillment, and returns) versus
plan.
TBD
LOE 7.8.8 OIB efficiency (use) Use of OIB resources. TBD
LOE 7.8.9 OIB efficiency (return) Return on OIB resources. TBD
LOE 7.8.10 OIB requirements churn Measure of changes in requirements in terms of
magnitude, timing, and effect of change.
TBD
Army Directive 2017-35 3 Enclosure 8
Table 2-7: Logistics Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 7.8.11 OIB funding churn Measure of changes in planned, programmed,
budgeted, or actual funding levels in terms of
magnitude, timing, and effect of change.
TBD
LOE 7.9 Materiel readiness LOE 7.9.1 Depot-level reparables
meeting time between
overhaul requirements
% of depot-level reparable parts not making time
between overhaul during the last 6 months.
≥ 90%
LOE 7.9.2 Programs meeting unit
status reporting
requirements
% of systems not meeting DA unit status reporting
standards within the last 6 months.
≥ 90%
LOE 7.9.3 Programs with non-mission-
capable equipment
> 30 days on unit status
report
# of programs with equipment identified as non-
mission-capable for supply for more than 30 days on
unit status reports within the last 6 months.
0
LOE 7.9.4 Weapons systems with
> 5 messages before FRP
# of weapons systems with more than five messages
(any type) before FRP.
0
LOE 7.9.5 Software systems with
> 5 messages before FRP
# of software systems with more than five messages
(any type) before FRP.
0
LOE 7.9.6 Platforms with > five
messages before FRP
# of platforms with more than five messages (any type)
before FRP.
0
LOE 7.9.7 Weapons systems with
≥ two messages at FRP plus
2 years
# of weapons systems with two or more messages (any
type) within 2 years after FRP.
0
LOE 7.9.8 Software Systems with
≥ two messages at FRP plus
2 years
# of software systems with two or more messages (any
type) within 2 years after FRP.
0
LOE 7.9.9 Platforms with > two
messages at FRP plus
2 years
# of platforms with two or more messages (any type)
within 2 years after FRP.
0

Read More

ARMY DIR 2017-33 ENABLING THE ARMY MODERNIZATION TASK FORCE

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN6391_AD2017-33_Web_Final.pdf

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-33 (Enabling the Army Modernization Task Force)
1. On 6 October 2017, I directed the establishment of a task force under the leadership
of Lieutenant General Edward C. Cardon, Director of Business Transformation, to
explore all options to establish unity of command and unity of effort that consolidates
the Army’s modernization process under one roof. This task force will report directly to
the Under Secretary of the Army and Vice Chief of Staff of the Army on a biweekly basis
with a target for initial operating capability of the chosen option no later than 1 June
2018.
2. On 13 October 2017, I directed General Cardon to focus the task force’s efforts on
the design and establishment of a new command. Effective immediately, the Director of
Business Transformation is assigned the additional responsibility as the Director of the
Army Modernization Task Force until relieved or the task force is consumed by the
establishment of a new Army Command (ACOM).
3. Establishing unity of command and unity of effort that consolidates the
modernization process under a new command will allow us to fundamentally alter the
institutional Army, including Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) and all the
ACOMs and Direct Reporting Units (DRUs).
4. I am further directing General Cardon to examine the current allocation of functions
within HQDA, ACOMs, and DRUs regarding the modernization process and ascertain
major problems stemming from the Department of the Army’s current organization and
management. Identification of the problems will lead to recommendations to redefine
the roles, functions, authorities, structure, organization, and resources of HQDA,
ACOMs, and DRUs and to design, document, and resource the headquarters
component of a new command to provide unity of command, unity of effort, and unity of
purpose for Army modernization under one roof.
5. To provide the widest possible latitude in executing this task, General Cardon has
discretion to select task force members with any permanent assignments subject to
review by the Chief of Staff of the Army for general officers, the Under Secretary of the
Army for Senior Executive Service members, and the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army for
other members. My expectation is that commands and organizations with personnel
identified for the task force will expeditiously enable their full participation.
S E C R E T A R Y O F T H E A R M Y
W A S H I N G T O N
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-33 (Enabling the Army Modernization Task Force)
2
6. Terms of reference for the review of Army modernization and reorganization are at
the enclosure. The terms will guide the task force’s efforts, providing left and right
limits, objectives, assumptions, and deliverables. Within these limits, General Cardon
has direct tasking authority across the Army, including the Army Secretariat.
7. In addition, General Cardon is provided the following authorities and responsibilities
in support of the task force’s mission:
a. Oversight of external communications related to this effort to minimize divergent
messages from commands.
b. Effective immediately, the Director of the Office of Process Innovation and
Integration is a direct report and will oversee the Cross-Functional Team Pilots.
c. Expedited hiring authority with priority from U.S. Army Civilian Human Resources
Agency.
8. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) and the
Commanding General, U.S. Army Materiel Command will develop a recommended list
of key modernization-related positions from which to defer hiring until we know if that
role persists in the future. They will submit the list through General Cardon to the
Deputy Under Secretary of the Army no later than 17 November 2017.
9. This initiative is of particular significance at this time, and I want you to be aware of
my personal interest in it. Accordingly, General Cardon is authorized direct access to,
and priority support from, all major commanders and heads of staff agencies. I am sure
he will receive full cooperation from all individuals.
Encl Ryan D. McCarthy
Acting
DISTRIBUTION:
Principal Officials of Headquarters, Department of the Army
Commander
U.S. Army Forces Command
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command
U.S. Army Materiel Command
U.S. Army Pacific
U.S. Army Europe
U.S. Army Central
(CONT)
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-33 (Enabling the Army Modernization Task Force)
3
DISTRIBUTION: (CONT)
U.S. Army North
U.S. Army South
U.S. Army Africa/Southern European Task Force
U.S. Army Special Operations Command
Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Strategic Command
U.S. Army Cyber Command
U.S. Army Medical Command
U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command
U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Military District of Washington
U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command
U.S. Army Installation Management Command
U.S. Army Human Resources Command
U.S. Army Financial Management Command
U.S. Army Marketing and Engagement Brigade
Superintendent, United States Military Academy
Director, U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center
Executive Director, Arlington National Cemetery
Commandant, U.S. Army War College
Director, U.S. Army Civilian Human Resources Agency
CF:
Director, Army National Guard
Director of Business Transformation
Commander, Eighth Army
Enclosure
INITIAL TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE
REVIEW OF ARMY MODERNIZATION AND ORGANIZATION
1. Problem. The Army’s current requirements and capabilities development practices
take too long. On average, the Army takes from 3 to 5 years to approve requirements
and another 10 years to design, build, and test new weapon systems. The Army is
losing near-peer competitive advantage in many areas: we are outranged, outgunned,
and increasingly outdated. Private industry and some potential adversaries are fielding
new capabilities much faster than we are. The speed of change in warfighting
concepts, threats, and technology is outpacing current Army modernization constructs
and processes.
2. Objectives. The objectives of the Review of Army Modernization and Organization
are to:
a. provide recommendations to redefine the roles, functions, authorities, structure,
organization, and resources of Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA); Army
Commands (ACOMs); and Direct Reporting Units (DRUs) and to design, document, and
provide resources to the headquarters component of a new ACOM to provide unity of
command, effort, and purpose for Army modernization under one roof.
b. examine the current allocation of modernization functions within HQDA, ACOMs,
and DRUs to ascertain major problems stemming from the Department of the Army’s
(DA’s) current organization and management.
c. develop and analyze reorganization alternatives that would eliminate or reduce
identified problem areas by, among others:
(1) eliminating duplication of effort and excessive fragmenting of functions,
responsibilities, and resources.
(2) consolidating responsibilities into logical and workable functional areas.
(3) creating an organization that is aligned to the current and projected Defense
environment.
(4) improving effectiveness by clearly fixing and limiting responsibility for
accomplishment of major tasks within the functional areas.
(5) ensuring a strong command structure.
(6) providing for the flexible use of skills and capabilities of both military and
civilian personnel.
(7) delegating to subordinate commands and agencies functions that need not
be performed at the HQDA level and are not reserved to the Army Secretariat or Army
Staff by law.
2
(8) creating options for reorganizations based on workable, realistic procedures
instead of on abstract functional relationships.
d. identify any legal or statutory constraints to a more efficient and effective
organization of Army modernization efforts and recommend to the Secretary of the
Army proposed legislative changes for congressional enactment.
e. arrange those reorganization options in recommended priority to best correct
major organization and management problems while remaining most responsive to
current and foreseeable Army requirements.
f. develop the effect—both favorable and unfavorable—of implementing the
selected reorganization options.
g. recommend one organization.
h. prepare a time-phased plan and procedures for implementing the proposed
organization.
3. Limits. The Review of Army Modernization and Organization:
a. will examine DA functions, organization, and procedures in the continental United
States, including (but not necessarily limited to):
(1) U.S. Army Forces Command;
(1) U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command;
(3) U.S. Army Materiel Command;
(4) U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command;
(5) U.S. Army Installation and Management Command; and
(6) HQDA, including the Army Secretariat and Army Staff, understanding that
statutory constraints currently restrict the reassignment of certain functions and
responsibilities to organizations outside the Secretariat and, in some cases, outside a
specific Assistant Secretary of the Army.
b. will limit internal review of existing organizations and installations to ascertain
proper assignment of missions and functions to ACOMs, DRUs, and major HQDA staff
sections, understanding statutory constraints currently restrict the reassignment of
certain functions and responsibilities to organizations outside the Secretariat and, in
some cases, outside a specific Assistant Secretary of the Army.
c. will not address reorganization proposals for the joint arena or Army tactical
organizations.
3
4. Timeframe. No later than 6 February 2018, the Army Modernization Task Force will
present to the Secretary of the Army and Chief of Staff of the Army for decision the
recommendations to redefine roles, functions, authorities, structure, organization, and
resources of HQDA, ACOMs, and DRUs, including the initial operational capability plan
and full operational capability concept for a new ACOM, in sufficient detail to establish
an initial headquarters with necessary personnel and resources.
5. Assumptions
a. The missions of DA will remain unchanged.
b. The Department of Defense and Congress will continue to impose resource
constraints that prescribe ceilings under which the Army must function.
c. Legislative relief can be obtained by requesting statutory changes that would
enhance the effectiveness of Army modernization and the efficiency of the Army
organization.
6. Essential Elements of Analysis
a. Determine the most critical internal organizational and management problems
facing the Army’s modernization processes today.
b. Determine major modernization problems that are amenable to solution by
changing DA’s current organization and/or management techniques.
c. Develop those changes required in HQDA, ACOM, and DRU structures. The
changes should consist of defining the:
(1) required realignment of functions both within and among HQDA, ACOMs,
and DRUs.
(2) required consolidations, transfers, or eliminations of HQDA Staff or major
elements, commands, and DRUs.
d. Consider the effect of actions recommended in major studies or documents such
as the:
(1) National Commission on the Future of the Army Report.
(2) Decker Wagner Report (Army Strong: Equipped, Trained and Ready, Final
Report of the 2010 Army Acquisition Review).
(3) Reno Report (Reforming the Requirements and Resourcing Processes in
Support of Army Institutional Adaptation).
e. Develop a phased implementation plan for accomplishing any proposed
changes. As a part of the implementation, consider:
4
(1) the vital role of civilian and military personnel’s morale, tradition, and stability
within DA.
(2) the procedures for reducing turbulence resulting from shifting activities at
major installations.
(3) the priorities for conducting the implementation.
f. Consider the Army commitments in other activities of the Department of Defense
and the Federal Government.
g. Review the organizational patterns and concepts of the Air Force and Navy for
possible application to the Army organization.
h. Consider both the feasibility and desirability of obtaining staff and command
comments on the substantive provisions of the proposed reorganization.
7. Deliverables
a. Organizational first principles of the new command and process for
modernization.
b. Define initial operational capability and full operational capability for the new
command.
c. Define the boards, cell, and meetings for ACOM and DRU participation and a
battle rhythm that sustains momentum.
d. Develop the table of distribution and allowance structure for the new command.
e. Produce recommended roles, missions, functions, authorities, activities, and
processes of the new command considering existing law and proposing legislative
changes if necessary.
f. Define the criteria for military value analysis of potential future location of the new
command.
g. Provide potential legislative changes for submission in the fiscal year 2019
National Defense Authorization Act or earlier legislation.
h. Develop recommendations to redefine the roles, functions, authorities, structure,
organization, and resources of HQDA, ACOMs, and DRUs to improve Army
modernization processes. 

Read More

ARMY DIR 2017-24 CROSS-FUNCTIONAL TEAM PILOT IN SUPPORT OF MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN6101_AD2017-24_Web_Final.pdf

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-24 (Cross-Functional Team Pilot In Support of Materiel
Development)
1. Reference Army Directive 2017-22 (Implementation of Acquisition Reform
Initiatives 1 and 2), 12 Sep 2017.
2. The Army’s capabilities development and acquisition enterprise is exploring an
innovative organizational construct to integrate and synchronize processes across
multiple stakeholders. The Army will leverage designated Cross-Functional Team
(CFT) pilots to embrace horizontal and vertical integration and improve the quality and
speed of materiel development activities. The CFTs will follow a Developmental
Operations methodology defined as warfighters and developers working together to
prepare sound capability documents that enable the rapid and frequent delivery of
capabilities to the warfighter to inform a potential program of record. The use of
designated CFTs supports the authority of the Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) to assist
the Secretary of the Army in the development and approval of requirements.
3. We are establishing CFTs that will narrow an existing capability gap by developing
capability documents, informed in appropriate cases by experimentation and technical
demonstrations, and rapidly transition leader-approved capability requirements to the
Army Acquisition System. This approach will allow us to develop capabilities faster and
in a less costly manner to enable our Soldiers to fight and win.
4. The purpose of this directive is to establish a scalable CFT pilot consisting of
personnel from the following domains: Requirements, Acquisition, Science and
Technology, Test and Evaluation, Resourcing, Contracting, Costing, Acquisition
Logisticians, and U.S. Army Forces Command (as well as Army Service Component
Commands as applicable). The CFTs will also leverage industry and academia where
appropriate to help inform the capabilities development process. The end state is an
empowered team that rapidly integrates and synchronizes Developmental Operations
activities that enable the delivery of leader-approved capabilities to the operating force.
5. The concept for the CFT is to develop a requirement, informed in appropriate cases
by experimentation and technical demonstrations, through teaming, agility, and rapid
feedback to enable the development of a capability document and improve the decision
making for a potential program of record. The Army will stand up eight priority CFTs to
pilot a flat organizational construct enhanced by centralized planning and decentralized
execution to deliver the best possible return on investment for Soldiers. Each CFT will
S E C R E T A R Y O F T H E A R M Y
W A S H I N G T O N
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-24 (Cross-Functional Team Pilot In Support of Materiel
Development)
2
be led by a Director (Brigadier General) who reports directly to the Under Secretary of
the Army (USA) at the direction of the Secretary of the Army and Vice Chief of Staff of
the Army (VCSA) at the direction of the CSA. The VCSA will chair a panel that includes
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology);
Commanders of U.S. Army Forces Command, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine
Command, and U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC); Deputy Under Secretary of the
Army; Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1; Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8; Director of Business
Transformation; Chief, General Officer Management Office; and Director of the Office of
Process Innovation and Integration. The panel will assess nominees for CFT Directors
and make final recommendations to the CSA for approval. The CFTs will consist of
empowered subject matter experts from across the Requirements, Acquisition, Science
and Technology, Test and Evaluation, Resourcing, Contracting, Costing, and
Sustainment communities that participate for the duration of the mission.
a. The eight CFT pilots, aligned with the CSA’s six modernization priorities, are:
(1) Long Range Precision Fires: Long Range Precision Fires CFT pilot.
(2) Next Generation Combat Vehicle: Next Generation Combat Vehicle CFT
pilot.
(3) Future Vertical Lift: Future Vertical Lift CFT pilot.
(4) Network Command, Control, Communication, and Intelligence:
(a) Network Command, Control, Communication, and Intelligence CFT pilot; and
(b) Assured Positioning, Navigation, and Timing CFT pilot.
(5) Air and Missile Defense: Air and Missile Defense CFT pilot.
(6) Soldier Lethality:
(a) Soldier Lethality CFT pilot, and
(b) Synthetic Training Environment CFT pilot.
b. We will achieve initial operating capability 14 days from the date of this directive
and will focus on existing priority capability gaps. These teams will be responsible for
developing the respective capability documents, informed in appropriate cases by pre-
Materiel Solution Analysis Phase experimentation and technical demonstrations to
ensure that planned capabilities are technologically feasible, affordable, and available
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-24 (Cross-Functional Team Pilot In Support of Materiel
Development)
3
to Soldiers. All CFT activities will operate in accordance with the authorities granted to
the Army in the Joint Capabilities Integration Development System and Department of
Defense 5000 series (Defense Acquisition System) directives and instructions.
Participating Acquisition Program Managers will continue to report to their assigned
Program Executive Officer and the Army Acquisition Executive.
6. This effort is executed in three phases: Phase I: Establish CFT, Phase II:
Execution of Charter, and Phase III: Transition to Program of Record.
a. Phase I: Establish CFT. Phase I begins upon receipt of this directive. The CFT
will begin planning and coordination. This phase ends when the CFT Director gives a
backbrief of the Strategic Capability Roadmap to the USA and VCSA and is prepared to
begin capability development.
b. Phase II: Execution of Charter. Phase II begins with the USA’s and VCSA’s
approval of the Strategic Capability Roadmap and CFT charter. The CFT will refine
requirements and, in appropriate cases, conduct pre-Materiel Solution Analysis Phase
experimentation and technical demonstrations that leverage industry, academia, and
the warfighter in an iterative process. This phase ends when the USA and VCSA
determine that the requirement is ready to transition a materiel solution via entry into the
acquisition system. The CSA still maintains his role to assist the Secretary of the Army
in personally developing and approving requirements unless delegated to the VCSA.
c. Phase III: Transition to Program of Record. The purpose of Phase III is to
transition CFT capability requirements into the acquisition system. Phase III begins with
the determination that the capability document is sufficient to proceed with a materiel
solution. This phase ends with a Materiel Development Decision (MDD) Acquisition
Decision Memorandum by the responsible Milestone Decision Authority and transition to
the acquisition system.
7. The CFT pilot effort will be assessed against desired organizational and program
outcomes, focusing on improving cost, speed, and capability outcomes for materiel
solutions to meet warfighter requirements.
8. I direct the following actions:
a. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) will:
(1) provide a Product Manager or Deputy Product Manager to support each CFT
at locations to be determined (TBD).
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-24 (Cross-Functional Team Pilot In Support of Materiel
Development)
4
(2) in coordination with AMC, provide Acquisition Logisticians to support CFT
pilots at locations TBD.
(3) serve as a voting member on the CFT Director Selection Panel.
b. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller)
will provide a Cost Analyst representative to support each CFT at locations TBD.
c. The Commander, Forces Command will:
(1) select units with operational experience as subject matter experts to partner
with CFTs to maintain constant user involvement and feedback through unit
partnerships throughout the developmental process.
(2) serve as a voting member on the CFT Director Selection Panel.
d. The Commander, Training and Doctrine Command will:
(1) provide a Capability Developer to support each CFT at locations TBD.
(2) serve as a voting member on the CFT Director Selection Panel.
e. The Commander, AMC will:
(1) provide, in coordination with ASA (ALT), Acquisition Logisticians to support
CFT pilots at locations TBD.
(2) provide a Contracting Officer to support each of the eight CFTs at locations
TBD to ensure that U.S. Army Contracting Command is integrated with the CFTs.
(3) provide Science and Technology representatives to support the eight CFTs.
(4) serve as a voting member on the CFT Director Selection Panel.
f. The Deputy Under Secretary of the Army will serve as a voting member on the
CFT Director Selection Panel.
g. The Commander, U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command will provide a Test
and Evaluation representative to support each of the eight CFTs at locations TBD.
h. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8 will:
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-24 (Cross-Functional Team Pilot In Support of Materiel
Development)
5
(1) provide a Synchronization Staff Officer and/or Requirement Staff Officer to
integrate and synchronize the CFTs at locations TBD.
(2) review draft capability requirements and assist in monitoring to ensure the
CFTs are supported throughout capability and materiel development.
(3) be prepared to assist Training and Doctrine Command and AMC in
conducting Analysis of Alternatives or Sufficiency Analysis in support of the CFTs.
i. The CFTs will:
(1) lead the capability development effort, including, as appropriate,
experimentation and technical demonstration to a point the USA and VCSA have
determined. The CFT will develop and staff the capability documents for the USA and
VCSA to approve for potential transition to the acquisition system.
(2) refine capability documents, in appropriate cases through pre-Materiel
Solution Analysis Phase experimentation and technical demonstration, leveraging
industry, academia, and the warfighter in an iterative process to inform the materiel
solution.
(3) develop and submit the draft capability document for the USA and VCSA to
approve.
(4) brief a strategy with milestones for the USA and VCSA to approve, the CFT
charter, and the Strategic Capability Roadmap, which includes operational outcomes,
timeline, estimated costs, metrics, objectives, technical standards, and architecture, no
later than 30 days after approval of the CFT Director.
(5) conduct pre-Materiel Solution Analysis Phase experimentation and technical
demonstration activities to inform and refine the development of the Initial Capabilities
Document to support the MDD.
(6) develop and refine capability documentation for post-MDD efforts that is
aligned with the appropriate phase of the program.
j. All organizations will:
(1) use existing positions on organizational tables of distribution and allowances
to staff the CFTs. Personnel will be matrixed to the CFT they are assigned to.
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-24 (Cross-Functional Team Pilot In Support of Materiel
Development)
6
(2) fund personnel by the supporting agency that are matrixed to the CFTs.
(3) support the development of the CFT charter for each pilot that will include, at
a minimum, authority, mission and purpose, direction, and key operating principles.
(4) capture best practices and lessons learned from CFT pilots to inform future
innovation efforts and report them to the Office of Process Innovation and Integration.
k. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1; Director of Business Transformation; Chief,
General Officer Management Office; and Director, Office of Process Innovation and
Integration will support the CFT Director Selection Panel.
Encl Ryan D. McCarthy
Acting
DISTRIBUTION:
Principal Officials of Headquarters, Department of the Army
Commander
U.S. Army Forces Command
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command
U.S. Army Materiel Command
U.S. Army Pacific
U.S. Army Europe
U.S. Army Central
U.S. Army North
U.S. Army South
U.S. Army Africa/Southern European Task Force
U.S. Army Special Operations Command
Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Strategic Command
U.S. Army Cyber Command
U.S. Army Medical Command
U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command
U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Military District of Washington
U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command
(CONT)
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-24 (Cross-Functional Team Pilot In Support of Materiel
Development)
7
DISTRIBUTION: (CONT)
U.S. Army Installation Management Command
U.S. Army Human Resources Command
U.S. Army Financial Management Command
U.S. Army Marketing and Engagement Brigade
Superintendent, United States Military Academy
Director, U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center
Executive Director, Arlington National Cemetery
Commandant, U.S. Army War College
Director, U.S. Army Civilian Human Resources Agency
CF:
Director, Army National Guard
Director of Business Transformation
Commander, Eighth Army
Army Directive 2017-24 Enclosure
CROSS FUNCTIONAL TEAM (CFT) MANNING REQUIREMENTS
Organization Duty Position
To be determined CFT Director
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)
Product Manager or Deputy Product Manager
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Capability Developer
U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC) Science and Technology Representative
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) /
AMC
Acquisition Logistician
U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command Test and Evaluation Representative
AMC / U.S. Army Contracting Command Contracting Representative
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Financial Management and Comptroller)
Cost Analyst
Army Staff Synchronization Staff Officer / Requirement
Staff Officer
Roles and Responsibilities
Duty Position Responsibilities
CFT Director Develop charter. Draft initial requirement. Refine
requirements and/or design, build, test, and fix capability
concepts. Develop requirements for Under Secretary of
the Army and Vice Chief of Staff of the Army to approve
as a prerequisite to Materiel Development Decision.
Product Manager or Deputy Product
Manager
In coordination with Science and Technology personnel,
manage experimentation and technical demonstration
efforts in support of capability development and assist in
the preparation of informed requirements documents.
Capability Developer Refine Doctrine, Organization, Training, Material,
Leadership, Personnel, Facilities and Policy analysis to
include threat assessment and Operational Mode
Summary/Mission profile. Develop and refine Concept
of Operations, Analysis of Alternatives, and market
research with consortium partners. Draft and prioritize
Army Directive 2017-24 2 Enclosure
Duty Position Responsibilities
operational requirements (Key Performance
Parameters, Key System Attributes, and Additional
Performance Attributes). Complete the capability
document for Vice Chief of Staff approval.
Science and Technology
Representative
Assess technology requirements. Assess current level
of technology. Define technology objectives. Manage
experimentation and technical demonstration efforts, in
coordination with Product Manager, in support of
capability development and assist in the preparation of
informed requirements documents. Advise CFT Director
on technology development. Assess and adjudicate
technology readiness levels.
Acquisition Logistician Conduct Life-Cycle Sustainment Planning in support of
capability development and transition of requirements to
the acquisition system. As appropriate to an effort’s
level of maturity, refine performance-based sustainment
agreements and contract incentives.
Test and Evaluation Representative Assist in capability development through initiation of test
and evaluation planning in accordance with Department
of Defense Instruction 5000.02 and AR 73-1. As
appropriate to an effort’s level of maturity, develop and
update the test and evaluation strategy and develop the
Test and Evaluation Master Plan with the Product
Manager. Ensure testable values are technically
measurable and achievable. Coordinate with U.S. Army
Forces Command liaison officer to maintain Soldier
involvement throughout the design-build-test process,
maximizing unit partnerships.
Contracting Representative Develop and update contracting strategy as appropriate
to an effort’s level of maturity. Facilitate reduced cycle
times. Enable Request for Proposal requirements,
including Intellectual Property, Technical Data Package,
and access to contractor test results. Leverage
contractor testing to reduce costs and schedule.
Cost Analyst Develop Independent Cost Estimate and support the
Army Cost Position process as appropriate to an effort’s
level of maturity.
Synchronization Staff Officer /
Requirement Staff Officer
Assist in requirement validation. Provide budget
assistance. Conduct affordability analysis. Facilitate
Joint Capabilities Integration Development System
processes. 

Read More

Army Acronyms, Abbreviations, What It Stands for

ARTIMS: Army Training Information Management System


LPD: Leader Professional Development


ODT: Overseas Deployment Training

POI: Program of Instruction

SM: Service Member

TTAD: Temporary Tour of Active Duty

T-10

UFG: Ulchi-Freedom Guardian

Read More

Best Civilian Jobs for National Guard Soldiers

1. Local Law Enforcement / Fire Fighters

Local law enforcement officers and fire fighters are great jobs for National Guard Soldiers. They pay good, look at your military experience favorably, and offer retirement just like military - so at the end, you will have two retirement checks!

Also, many departments will allow you free days-off for your service in National Guard. For an example, in Washington state, a lot of police/fire departments will give their officers paid 20 days off per year so they can serve their states. So it's a legal double dipping!
 

2. Federal Technicians

Army technician jobs are available only to National Guard Soldiers. Most technician jobs are limited to Soldiers who are MOS-qualified, mostly in mechanic-related MOS. You will wear your uniform during weekdays, but you are not under your National Guard CoC. The requirement is that you will have to stay in National Guard. You usually get paid by the hour with all the benefits of a federal employee. Also, you still get paid for your drills, so you will get double retirement as well.

3. GS Jobs 

GS jobs are good, but your retirement is less compared to other jobs mentioned above.

Read More

3 Status of National Guard Soldiers: M-DAY, AGR, ADOS 32

1. M-DAY: Typical National Guard Soldier - Serving one weekend a month, 2 weeks a year.
   
   
2. AGR: You're working for National Guard for your state, but you are on active duty. Once you get in, you can serve 20+ years. You get active pay, plus BAH. But, however, you don't get paid for your drills. You only get active pay, not active pay + drill pay. So basically you go to drill for free.
   
   
3. Active Duty Operational Support (ADOS): Similar to AGR, but you are limited to 3 years at a time. After 3 years, you have to take a mandatory 30 days break. Also, you need to renew your contract every year. Your working years as an ADOS count towards your active retirement. When you're on ADOS order, you will get full BAH along with other active duty benefits.
   
   
4. State Active Duty (SAD) Order: You'll be on SAD order whenever you are called in to duty by the state (by the governor). On SAD order, your pay will be different than your normal military pay. Refer to the following FAQ for more details on SAD order: State Active Duty (SAD) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
   

Read More

DOD Cyber Awareness Challenge Training Module

Trophies don't matter. Just pass them.

Read More

How to Complete ISOPREP Before You Go Overseas with Army National Guard

ISOPREP can only be accessed from a government computer, not just any computer with a CAC reader. Also, the computer needs to be one that requires login to the computer using your CAC. For example, it wouldn't work on an Army language lab computer that only uses a same username and password for everybody.

Read More

Topics

Green to Gold
Enlisted to Officer
Language pay for National Guards
Extra work opportunity
Work full-time in National Guard
From National Guard to Active
From Active to National Guard
What is National Guard?

Read More